Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rfambot 2
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Ppgardne (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted:
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: email me
Function overview: See User:Rfambot
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Jennifer_Rfm#Change_of_bot_operator
Edit period(s): approximately bi-annually
Estimated number of pages affected: A specified list of approximately 600 pages
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Assert Edit flags used (exists, user/bot, none): none
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: See User:Rfambot
Discussion
[edit]I intended to leave this open for at least a week to give editors a chance to evaluate the new operator; I don't think they'll be any objection to the continuing functioning of the bot. Josh Parris 00:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thanks Josh.--Paul (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no problems with this. Old operator agrees to change, new operator appears to know what they're doing. Just my 2¢. — The Earwig (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Second Earwig, I give a thumbs up for trial Josh. Tim1357 (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- K, its been a week. Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Good luck! Tim1357 (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tim, I don't think a trial is appropriate. The application is essentially to hand over operational responsibility. There's been no change to the code, nor task. And it hasn't been a week. Josh Parris 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreeing that a trial is not necessary. This is the same code, right? The actual execution of the bot probably won't be problematic; it's the operator that this BRFA is really about. At any rate, Josh, do you think we can approve this relatively soon? It's almost been a week (in a few hours, literally), and besides the few BAG members who have bothered to look at this, nobody has commented. — The Earwig (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nope, the code hasn't changed. Other than dropping in the exclusion compliance.--Paul (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Agreeing that a trial is not necessary. This is the same code, right? The actual execution of the bot probably won't be problematic; it's the operator that this BRFA is really about. At any rate, Josh, do you think we can approve this relatively soon? It's almost been a week (in a few hours, literally), and besides the few BAG members who have bothered to look at this, nobody has commented. — The Earwig (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- Tim, I don't think a trial is appropriate. The application is essentially to hand over operational responsibility. There's been no change to the code, nor task. And it hasn't been a week. Josh Parris 12:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- K, its been a week.
Approved. It seems the opposition has been convincingly out-argued. Please place a note on the bot's user page about the change in operator. Josh Parris 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.